Members:   Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Becky Burr, Fiona Asonga, Giovanni Seppia, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Julie Hammer, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sebastien Bachallot, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (19)

Participants:  Alissa Cooper, Allan MacGillivray, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Arun Sukumar, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Cherine Chalaby, Chris Disspain, Christopher Wilkinson, David Maher, David McAuley, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Gary Hunt, Greg DiBiase, Greg Shatan, James Gannon, Jeff Neuman, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Ken Salaets, Malcolm Hutty, Mark Carvell, Markus Kummer, Mike Chartier, Niels ten Oever, Paul Rosenzweig, Paul Szyndler, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Philip Corwin, Rafael Perez Galindo, Ron Da Silva, Rudi Daniel, Sabine Meyer, Steve Crocker, Stephen Deerhake, Tom Dale, Thomas Schneider, Vrikson Acosta, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben   (45)

Legal Counsel:  Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit

Guests:  Andrea Beccalli, Asha Hemrajani, Barbara Wanner, Brad White, Brett Schaefer, Cathy Handley, Chris Wilson, Christopher Mondini, David R Johnson, David Olive, Duncan Burns, Emily Pimentel, Fiona Alexander, Gordon Chillcott, Iren Borissova, Jim Prendergast, John Poole, Jonathan Robinson, Joseph Wright, Kate Wallace, Kevin Espinola, Lisa Pearlman, Lise Fuhr, Mary Uduma, Suzanna Bennett, Suzanne Woolf, Terek Kamel, 

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Bart Bostwinkel, Bernie Turcott, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Hillary Jett, Laena Rahim, Marika Konings, Mike Brennan, Saller Costerton, Theresa Swinehart, Trang Nguyen, 

Apologies:  Giovanni Seppia, Seun Ojedeji, Eberhard Lisse, Edward Morris, Izumi Okutani

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**




These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

Assessment of agreement areas

- Thank you for effort being put in this. 

-  The slide is an assessment of where we believe the community is now. It is not meant in any way to be a position of the Board. This slide is divided into 4 groups and columns.

On left handside: 4 groups of elements to strengthen accountability of ICANN. We took them from CWG-stewardship work. 

On right handside: we tried to divide list of items into 4 columns. 1st column elements that have brought agreement specifically designed to replace NTIA backstop role; 2nd column has addition elements of broad agreement but not necessary to replace US role; 3rd column are elements that have broad community agreement on requirements but not necessarily to implement them; 4th colum is for items where there is no broad agreement. 

- We produced this slide for two reasons: 1) amount of material that is available is so vast that many are struggling to get a sense of overall picture; 2) reading public comment to determine areas of broad agreement. We may not have every detail on how to implement these. There are no issues we believe cannot be resolved. How do we provide oversight of IANA by OCs for instance - e.g. First two columns have checked marks because we feel there is broad agreement on all these items. First set is for CWG dependencies - there is broad agreement there. It meets the requirements of replacing backstop and goes beyond that to strenghten accountability of ICANN. Removing Board directors is powerful and limited today. Pre service letter is a contract that forces Board members to resign. Making IRP binding gives an additional avenue. In alignment with principles of third block. We are in synch. The last group speaks about creation of new legal structures. The Board showed concerns in LA. There is no consensus as it will generate a lot of questions. Having a brand new untested model creates capture and generates question about enforceability. It will take time. We don't have this detail. NTIA confirmed that if receives proposal without additional details, NTIA will have a hard time accepting proposal. We need guidance from CCWG on whether the first two columns are sufficient to move forward with the transition. The Board is committed to working within your process. We are trusting you that we will towards solution. 


- you would be so kind and ask Fadi why only the 4th vertical box talks about "new structures".Does he mean SMM?

--> Models that create new legal authority that are above Board with very powerful authority is a concern not for their existence but because they will need to be understood and safeguarded, managed in a way that will not create authoritative powers that will not be bound by accountability of ICANN. It is a concern. Everytime we create a new structure - questions of who is in that new structure and are they accountable are natural questions that you are asking Board today. Everyone should be clear that all models create new powers on top of existing structure. They need to be understood and bound to make sure organization continues to operate.

- Slide summarizes what has been discussed but disagree with line "reaffirm in bylaws current requirement of Board/GAC consultation on consensus advice". Concerns about stress test 18 are not reflected. It is not a broad community agreement. The GAC is still deliberating. It has been proposed by some CCWG members as work stream 1 but no broad agreement. We would welcome details on any changes to structure. 

--> Agree that this is still work in progress. It includes an asterisk that further work is needed. 

- What is missing is separation of PTI from ICANN. Membership is not a new idea.

--> We can add line to emphasize what you said. We are in alignment.

- What kind of details are being sought? Draft Bylaws? Is this something that has been given consideration?

--> E.G. what would be threshold for Board members' recall or cause etc. Another instance: voting requirements are unclear - what would they be - Would GAC join - if so, what rights etc. Detail is especially needed on bottom three lines. 

- Would you agree that there is consensus for power to remove individual director in either model? 

--> Yes. There is consensus from community for this power. But how does the NomCom do it vs. SO/ACs? Detail needed. Important for stakeholders to have equal ability to remove Board members. Our Board is 100 % in support of this power.

- The bottom three rows are carefully constructed so that problem is new structure. What do mean by "new structure". All existing mechanisms rely on existing Bylaws. Do you mean statuory characteristics of membership organization? The member aspect of ICANN is woven into our Bylaws. The membership gene is suppressed. What if we were to consider the designator model?  

--> If we remove wording of new structure - if those things were built into our Bylaws, then we are okay. Concerns when not fully understood and when no safeguards to preserve multistakeholder. How are those powers in check and accountable? How are decisions reflecting public interest and mission of ICANN? What is the legal assessment of what is already in our Bylaws. Need to ensure decisions are made in global public interest

- Does the Board's objection to the sole member model apply to a sole designator model?  In particular, there are strong grounds to argue that ICANN currently operates under a designator model, so that it would not be a "new structure"

--> Unclear how designator model would work. We are saying no to concentration of powers in three rows. It should not infringe global public interest or nature of our organization. Ethos of ICANN not to concentrate power and to balance it between SO/ACs. 

- This slide is interpreted as assessment of what is going on. We need to assess public comments. We need to ensure that all voices in room are getting channeled. Disperse powers among community outside all 16 Board members. We need to keep away from language. We have promise of mutual accountability. 

---> Slide is a personal attempt to understand and build bridges. We can all use your assessment. CCWG vs. Board does not help - Board is fully committeed to working in process.. Our number 1 is to community and not to corporate. 

- Avoid possibility for one part of community to struggle against another part at court level. It is an important point that needs to be taken into account. 

---> Our good chunk of our community cannot participate. We have a subset of community in single point. When parts of community are not in model, a subset of comments suddenly has those powers. Idea that will be listening to advice needs safeguard. All details are necessary when power is limited to a smaller group of SO/AC. 

Conclusion: Dialogue has not reached point where all parties feel full understanding of rationale and characteristics of proposals. We need to reach this level. 

Work plan to Dublin

We have limited time and wish to focus WP parties to reading community comment and labeling them into three areas: 1) consensus; 2) refinement/requriring details; 3) divergence. We will task Work Parties to oversee this and submit additional details. 

In Dublin: address Work Party reports in AM - Afternoon key adjustment to proposal including approving alteratives 


- There is no point in having SO/AC Chairs represent interest of groups. All meetings should be open.

--> No one has suggested establishing secret meetings or excluding anyone from meetings. 

--> Goal of WPs is to complete work of analyzing community feedback and coming back to group with a set of options by OC T 12 so that in Dublin the CCWG can make decisions. These groups are not decision-making. Roles of rapporteurs are to gather input. 

- Where will additional time be slotted? 

- Support having a group that waves red flags to advance work and coordinate overall process. 

- A lot of concerns could be dealt with easily if we clarified what is meant in last slide. If could clarify that means appointed in CCWG as opposed to creating new group. Is there any thought about which Board member/lawyer. What would this new small group be coordinating?

--> Encourage the Board to designate liaisons to work with WPs in place. This could lead to more active engagement between Board and CCWG. Legal teams would be invited to join as well as Board's legal advisors. 

- Output is aimed to show how analysis can be done and how it relates to comments receive. When it comes to substantive work, development of work in these subgroups in a concern. Full group will be subject to limited timeline. It would be better to work with current structure of open WPs.

- Support for staying with same approach. 

- What is focus group? 

--> No change to current structure. We are only encouraging Board members to join us. 

- Impossible to attend all discussions. 

- Texts should be open to all community.

--> All groups are open and transparent.

- Don't call them focus groups. 

- Bruce-Rinalia and Cherine will be joining WPs. 

Engagement Plan with Chartering Organizations and Board

Would you like to include political advisors or would the group prefer not to engage with advisors at this time? 

There is no clear preference

ACTION ITEM - Reach out to political advisors and ask whether they can provide us with input on politic scene vis-a-vis our model.  


- Stick to professional and technical - not political. 

--> It is our role to ensure group's views are heard. It is an important point. 

ACTION ITEM: Define scoping of this action

On report communications – Kieren's note advised that our report is written for community. It makes sense to keep our format as it includes our methodology. On top of that we should be working on separate document to make language easier to understand. Are there additional actions we should take action on? We should not do a rewrite of report but suggestion to remove genesis and focus on content instead. 


- Agree with short format. We need to engage comms and X-plane in detailed manner. 

- Try to capture clarity of discussion earlier to modify proposal. Could this be followed up through three Board members

- Ensure there is understanding. 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Reach out to political advisors and ask whether they can provide us with input on politic scene vis-a-vis our model.  

ACTION ITEM: Define scoping of this action

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (9/29/2015 11:27) Welcome to CCWG Accountability Meeting #57 on 29 September 2015!  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior:  

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:48) Hi Every body

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:48)  Hi Dear Co-Chairs

  Kavouss Arasteh: (13:48) Hi ICANN STAFF

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (13:51) Hello!

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (13:51) Hi Kavouss, ICANN Staff, Olga and everyone

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (13:51) Dear Brenda can you do a dial out to me? +54 11 4819 7979

  Brenda Brewer: (13:51) Yes Olga!

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (13:51) Thanks :)

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (13:52) Brenda, could you also dial me at 862 485 3215?

  Brenda Brewer: (13:52) Yes Holly!

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (13:54) hi all...

  cherine chalaby: (13:54) Hi everyone

  Christopher Wilkinson: (13:55) Good evening CW

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (13:55) Hello everyone. Flight is delayed so I'll stay on as long as I can

  Keith Drazek: (13:56) Hi all

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (13:56) Greetings!

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (13:56) Hello everybody

  Sabine Meyer: (13:56) Hello everyone!

  James Gannon: (13:57) Morning/Afternoon/Evening All

  Greg Shatan: (13:57) Hello, all!  Apologies that I will have to drop off after 90 minutes.

  Farzaneh Badii: (13:57) Hi

  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (13:57) Hello everyone.

  Steve Crocker: (13:57) Hello, everyone

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:57) hello all

  Greg Shatan: (13:58) I hope everyone enjoyed their moratorium.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (13:58) Hi All- and bon courage!  Anne

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (13:58) :-)

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (13:58) Hello all

  Niels ten Oever: (13:58) Hi all

  David McAuley (RySG): (13:59) Hello all

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (14:00) Hi all. Waiting to be admitted to the audio bridge.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:00) we have a plurality of Wolfgangs :P

  Avri Doria: (14:00) how long is this mtg scheduled for?

  Niels ten Oever: (14:01) Four Wolfgangs on the call!

  Keith Drazek: (14:01) 2 hours

  James Gannon: (14:01) 2hrs, but I wont be able to stay that long personally

  Avri Doria: (14:01) thanks

  Arun Sukumar: (14:01) hello all

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (14:01) Hello alll

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:01) it's been so long, I missed all you guys ;-)

  Avri Doria: (14:02) he can listen in quad sound

  Arun Sukumar: (14:02) lol

  Sabine Meyer: (14:02) we totes missed you too, Jordan :)

  Keith Drazek: (14:02) Ooooh, I like games...

  Arun Sukumar: (14:02) his excellencies?

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:02) Master & Commander

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:02) super man ?

  Sabine Meyer: (14:02) Kaiser! :)

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:02) I vote for Servant Leaders

  James Gannon: (14:02) High Commander

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:02) Kaiser Wilhelm

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:02) Alternatively

  Avri Doria: (14:02) can we nominate some other names. 

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:02) Commandante

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:02) supreme leader

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:02) Statesmen

  Niels ten Oever: (14:02) Darklords!

  Alan Greenberg: (14:03) Supreme Leader(s) is the norm I think

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:03) Gurus

  Keith Drazek: (14:03) The Patients of Job

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (14:03) The Alpha and the Omega

  Chris Disspain: (14:03) echo at this end

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:03) Lords of Models

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:03) I vote for "Dear co-chairs" for the tee shirt

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:03) Chris, it's the interference we're running on your connection

  Chris Disspain: (14:03) haha

  Chris Disspain: (14:03) :-)

  Alan Greenberg: (14:04) Thomas, you have finally come up with a topic that we are interested in.

  Avri Doria: (14:04) poor dears

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (14:04)  Who is present on LA Office and DC office of ICANN?

  Greg Shatan: (14:04) Cerberus

  James Gannon: (14:04) Yes good question Holly

  Alan Greenberg: (14:04) Janus, so the two heads can focus on two models

  Chris Disspain: (14:04) I think we're all in the adobe room individualy

  Chris Disspain: (14:05) but using a joint phone line

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:05) Is it a protocol of these calls that people will log in individually? so we can all see who is on?

  Chris Disspain: (14:05) just no one else gettimg an echo?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:05) No echo here

  Keith Drazek: (14:05) No echo here.

  Sabine Meyer: (14:05) Cesar, Pompey and Crassus for the first triumvirate!

  David McAuley (RySG): (14:05) no echo here Chris

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:05) No echo here

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:05) no echo in San Francisco

  Alan Greenberg: (14:05) No echo here

  James Gannon: (14:05) No echo here

  Keith Drazek: (14:05) Sound fine to me, Fadi.

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:05) Hi Holly -- In DC, you've got Duncan Burns, Emily Pimentel, Hillary Jett, and me. We are all in  AC indivudually. The projector screen laptop is the "ICANN DC office computer"

  James Gannon: (14:06) Thanks Grace

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (14:06) Thanks Grace!

  Wolfgang 3: (14:06) Welcome and Hello

  James Gannon: (14:06) And Fadi and.. in the LA office?

  Chris Wilson: (14:07) Is there a phone operator?

  Samantha Eisner: (14:07) In LA, you have Fadi, John Jeffrey, Steve Crocker, Chris Disspain, Cherine Chalaby, Markus Kummer, Tarek Kamel, Akram Atallah, David Olive, and myself, with a projection computer logged in as L.A. office

  Chris Wilson: (14:07) Getting recorded message over and over again

  James Gannon: (14:07) Much thanks Sam

  Keith Drazek: (14:07) Fadi had shared this slide with the SO-AC-SG Leaders on a call last week. I thought it was a constructive and helpful resource that could help us all focus our work. We can debate the substance, but I like the framework.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:08) it was on the list yday too

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:08) @Chris -- send us your phone number and we will dial out to you. There is a phone operator.

  Hillary Jett: (14:09) Bruce shared this document to the list yesterday here:

  Chris Wilson: (14:09) 202-824-6514  thank you

  James Gannon: (14:10) There is something critical missing from this in my opinion, ability to enforce separation of PTI. This is a critical measure.

  Samantha Eisner: (14:10) Bruno Lanvin is also with us in L.A.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:10) Good point, James.

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:10) Dear Chairs, at some point if you would be so kind and ask Fadi why only the 4th vertical box talks about "new structures", and if by that he mean the SMM please? thank you

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:10) James + 1

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:11) Noted Carlos

  Chris Wilson: (14:11) connected.  Thanks, Grace

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:11) Merci

  Brenda Brewer: (14:11) Yes, Chris, the operator is calling you now

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (14:11) Carlos -- it is called "new" so that it can be rejected as too big a change

  Philip Corwin: (14:12) Is there audio now?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:12) We need to separate the CWG Ewquirements which are essencial for ICG and Transition

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:12) Tx Paul, it makes claer the difference to the PTI at least

  Philip Corwin: (14:12) Fixed

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:12) One issue of difference could be that the means of implementing the power in the board's proposal is so narrow or difficult, it renders that power meaningless.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:13) Fadi

  James Gannon: (14:14) Zuck mic open I think

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:14) Presumably the board would agree to a Single Designator model that allows individual board removal for cause/rationale.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:14) Someone needs to mute or to not talk in the same room as the speaker

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:14) Thanks for your presentation , you are really a good and capable communicator

  Keith Drazek: (14:14) Getting background noise.

  Roelof Meijer (SIDN, ccNSO): (14:15) @Grace/Alice: hello ladies, I am on the bridge for audio and in the room for video (Calling from my car)

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:15) I also belioeve that if there is a good will ,there is also a room to resolve all problem

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:15) Thanks @Roelof

  Ken Salaets/ITI: (14:16) Joined late. Also on the bridge for audio and in the room for visual.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:17) Thanks Mathieu allowing Fadi to freely and openly share his thought with us

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:18) Fadi

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:19)  Pls clarify whether you mean By laws to cover both standard and Fundamental Byéaws, This is important for CCWG$

  mike chartier: (14:19) I would note that “structure with legal authority to change any and all Bylaws”, is exactly where we are at today- only it’s the Board that has this power. Why is sharing this power with community representatives, rather than solely in the hands of the Board, somehow viewed as an increased risk?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:19) This is an elegent presentation of the Board's concerns. We won't know until we have finished our due diligence on the public comments whether we can share the assertion that these are the "community's

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:19)  " views

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:19) totally agree with you Jordan

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:20) Removal of Directors by Community could be "for cause" as evaluated pursuant to ICANN Board of Directors Code of Conduct:  CODE OF CONDUCTA.  General Statement of ExpectationEach Director and Liaison (“Board member”) is expected to adhere to a high standard of ethical conduct and to act in accordance with ICANN’s Mission and Core Values.  The good name of ICANN depends upon the way Board members and staff members conduct business and the way the public perceives that conduct.  Unethical actions, or the appearance of unethical actions, are not acceptable.  Board members are to be guided by the following principles in carrying out their responsibilities.  Note, however, that this Code summarizes such principles and nothing in this Code should be considered as limiting duties, obligations or legal requirements with which the Board members must comply.Loyalty  Board members should not be, or appear to be, subject to influences, interests or relationships that conflict with the interests of ICANN.  Board mem

  Avri Doria: (14:20) elegant was interesting word choice.

  James Gannon: (14:20) The membership model is not untested, its used day in and day out.

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (14:20) Indeeed, I respectfully dispute the charecterization in the fourth coloumn.  Most of the community comments I have read supported the CCWG model, not oppose.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:20) there was consensus to remove individual board members under either model with a rationale or cause.

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:20) tahat was hard: concentrate power that increases capture....did I hear right?

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:20) who phrased the last three points on the presentation?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:20) At the moment, the legal body that has the powers noted in that last block is the ICANN Board. The CCWG has only ever proposed limited rights to share authority over those decisions. For the record. :-)

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:20) THIS DEBATE IS DEFINITELY NOT DONE BY NOW  - Why does Fadi say that most people think we should not have a new model?  This is not at all what the public comments say.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:21) so it is odd that individual removal is listed in such a way as to imply no consensus for that power.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:21) Anne: Fadi is presenting the Board's concerns, and that's fair enough.

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (14:21) Just joined AC room; have been on phone for 15 minutes.

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:21) well I think Fadi is presenting Board's interpretation of the community opinion

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:21) New structure YES? but New Powers NO?

  Greg Shatan: (14:22) Anne,  Based on Jordan's comment, I would think that "most of us" referred to most of the Board not most of the community.

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (14:22) Fadi is

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:23) Fadi or other staff/board members - in the first block of comments, is the "community right to remove Board directors" referring to the whole Board and individuals, or just the former?

  Becky Burr: (14:23) did anyone ever ask for authority to change any and all bylaws or is that an outcome of a membership model (pt. 1 in column 4)

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (14:23) Apologies -- sorry for the type

  mike chartier: (14:23) I would note that “structure with legal authority to change any and all Bylaws”, is exactly where we are at today- only it’s the Board that has this power. Why is sharing this power with community representatives, rather than solely in the hands of the Board, somehow viewed as an increased risk?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:24) Becky: nobody asked for it. Statute gives the member model the right to do that, but we were clear that right would never be available to it because of the very high thresholds that would ever be needed to exercise them.

  Becky Burr: (14:24) Understood Mike, but i don't think that was a community ask to this point.

  Chris Disspain: (14:24) Hi IS matter how high the threshold

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:24) Where does the new structure to directly appoint and remove directors without cause come from?

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:24) Thank you very much FAdi for this explanation. But is not so much about the strcuture, as they existed before, is about the powers.

  Chris Disspain: (14:24) you cannot abrogate it

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:24) If you want your question raised please use the <QUESTION> tag. Will do my best depending on queue

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:24) Chris: yes, quite right. But it's unexercisable.

  Asha Hemrajani: (14:25) And Asha Hemrajani in the LA office as well

  mike chartier: (14:25) Agree, moreover it was explicitly said creating bylaws would be restricted by rule.

  Chris Disspain: (14:25) is exercisable but with a very high threshold

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:25) Today, five directors can wind up ICANN. It would be easier to end the corporation today than it would under the single member model.

  Chris Disspain: (14:25) I agree but that is not the point

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:25) Thank you fAdi

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:25) Chris: you mean "yes" - because that

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:25) We do not  need to know all the details of the new power at this stage

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:25) very clear

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:25) s just what I said.

  Greg Shatan: (14:25) Has Fadi been told that the members of a non-profit organization may cause that corporation to take actions clearly outside the mission and purpose stated in the Articles and Bylaws?  That is no my understanding of the law.

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:25) <QUESTION>You say you want more detail. What more detail are you looking for? Draft Byalws? Something else?</QUESTION>

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:25) It is absolutely the point.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:26) it's probably not an accurate characterizationt that the majority of the community is worried about the SMM. there are certainly SOME  with in the community and SOME of those who  might be persuaded with some safeguards but we know the board  , a particularly powerful part of the community, will not be persuaded. Now is not the time to reviisit that  , however.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:26) QUESTION:  What is the source of the statement that most people agree we should not adopt a membership corporation? QUESTION

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:26) Fadi meant implementation details ,if I undersood him correctly

  Chris Disspain: (14:26) @ Jordan - the difference is that the Board members have a duty...the members do not

  Becky Burr: (14:26) I think the chart is very clarifying. 

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (14:26) +1 Olga

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:26) It appears Board members have been wrongly advised that there is no way to limit the ability of the CMSM to exercise some of the 'statutory member powers' that people are worried about.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:27) May we use this session not be focussed on ST 18

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (14:27) Which is a greater risk, that the community is completely captured all accross the globe and invokes the member authority to completely change ICANN or the possibility that the Board ignores the community and does what it wants in spite of community opposition?  If today is any example we know the answer.  It is perfectly  silly to raise a parade of horribles  Chris when the  risk assessment deals with the reality of where we are now

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:27) dEAR cO cHAIRS,

  Becky Burr: (14:27) Jordan, I think that the Board members have been advised - perhaps correctly - that it is not clear how much you can limit a member's right to exercise statutory authority

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:28) <QUESTION> Would Fadi agree there is consensus for the power to remove individual directors for cause/rationale in either model (including sole designator)?

  Chris Disspain: (14:28) Correct Becky

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:28) Becky: you can limit the member's ability to decide to exercise its powers.

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:28) Is there any way that we find out what sort of advice the board has receieved? 

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:28) that's not the same thing as limiting its powers

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:28) that might be the point of contention/unclarity.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:29) Mathieu

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:29) (for instance - could we require a unanimity for exercising some of the "ear" powers, and include the ICANN Board as one of the bodies that has to agree unanimously?)

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:29) "ear" meant "fear"

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:29) This is an important session , let us not focuss on issues like any specific ST

  Becky Burr: (14:29) <Question>  Does the Board's objection to the sole member model apply to a sole designator model?  In particular, there are strong grounds to argue that ICANN currently operates under a designator model, so that it would not be a "new structure"

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:30) @Jordan and Becky:  Sidley/Adler actually advise that it is not clear the extent to which the modified ByLaws proposed by the Board as to enforceability could be valid or enforced.  The reason for this is that in the corporation as currently formed, the Directors are NEVER relieved of their fiduciary duties. In the membership corporation, the DIRECTORS ARE RELIEVED of fiduciary duty when the Member acts.

  James Bladel: (14:30) It's used in several ccTLD organizations as well.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:30) We better avoid to disagreeing with each other rather to seek the area that we could norrow down the differences

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:31) Anne: that's right.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:31) question to the lawyers: ist it possible to subject the exercise of fiduciary duties to arbitration in a non-membership model?

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:31) I support james in so far as we have no NEW STRUCTURES, only a shift of powers

  Christopher Wilkinson: (14:32) Until the eventual membership structure has a stable balanced participation and voting structure, the assumption must be that there is a risk of a cartel of the commerical operators. NO. CW

  Becky Burr: (14:32) @Anne - understand, was just pointing out that the Board is not wrong that there is some ambiguity about the degree to which a member's statutory powers can be constrained.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:32) @Becky - Sidley Adler clearly state in the Revised Memo that sole desgnator approach could not provide enforceable community powers with resepect to budget and strategy/operating plan veto.  See p. 4 - third bullet point from the bottom.

  Becky Burr: (14:32) @Anne - agreed

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:32) It is only their decision rights that can be constrained, internally. It isn't the member's right that can be diminished.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:32) Perhaps Fadi means implementation details

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:33) Removal with NO cause is not constitutional.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:33) @Jordan - so, for example, the decision to remove a director can be constrained by a "for cause" determination by the member that can be challenged by the director.  Is that correct?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:33) One must have always a cause to claim any action

  James Gannon: (14:33) Kavouss with respect its used in corporations every day.

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:33) That's lack of detail in the MEM propsal: that detail is no t lacking in our proposal, becuse we aren't proposing pre-signed contracts nor a threshold for cause

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:33) @Christopher: could you elaborate on the idea of a "commercial cartell"?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:34) An explanation is one thing Kavouss. A list of "allowed causes" is quite another.

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (14:34) Becky, we are working on a clarifying memo:  We believe that the internal decision making thresholds used by the community to direct the sole member can be made sufficiently high -- even unanimous -- to caddress the board's stated fear while complying with CA law

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (14:34) hello everyone, sorry to join late

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (14:34) caddress is "address"

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:34) The CCWG proposal envisages the Single Member being able to dismiss without cause,

  Becky Burr: (14:35) thanks Holly, very helpful

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:35) @Holly:  ist it possible to subject the exercise of fiduciary duties to arbitration in a non-membership model?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:35) That discussion is not supported by any legal provision

  Keith Drazek: (14:35) If we have follow up questison, the CCWG could submit them in writing to ICANN following the call to keep the lines of communication open.

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:35) @Holly That sounds good, but please remember not to raise the threshold to launch a derivative action to force ICANN to enter the IRP

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:35) The wish is without cause

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:35) We should avoid to follow a WISH

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:36) We must have a legal and valid argument which is A CAUSE

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (14:36) Jorge, you are correct that outside of a membership model, it would be highly unlikely that a court would enforce an arbitration decision that impeded the board's fiduciary judgment

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:37) Thanks, Fadi.  It would help to show more places of agreement if the next version of this slide indicated that there was consensus for individual board removal for rational/cause.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:37) Mathieu

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:37) Tjhank to select some question and not other questions or comments

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:37) @Holly: is there no way to preserve such duties, while subjecting them to an objective standard, independent to the Board?

  James Gannon: (14:38) Agree with Holly, that was one of my points was how do we deal with that in relation to things like the BJR and the caselaw support for directors having ultimate authoority

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:38) The nature of fiduciary duties is that they aren't objective

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:38) @Kavouss : I'm not aware of doing too much selection, am I ?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:38) BYLAWS ARTICLE XVII: MEMBERS  ICANN shall not have members, as defined in the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law ("CNPBCL"), notwithstanding the use of the term "Member" in these Bylaws, in any ICANN document, or in any action of the ICANN Board or staff.

  James Gannon: (14:38) Jorge they are not objective duties thats the issue

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:38) Mathieu

  Becky Burr: (14:38) A true DNA analogy Steve!

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:39) @Steve +1

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:39) @James: if they are legally cognizable, there should be applicable legal standards, right?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:39) After each individual  expresses his or her view we may need to enter to the neogotation  and not continue to defend our own ( CCWG or ICANN 9 position

  James Gannon: (14:39) No Jorge they are in the hands of the board to define the needs and requirements of the corporation, this is backed by caselaw as far as I am aware

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:39) can't a member sue a director for breach of fiduciary duties, but nobody else?

  James Gannon: (14:40) We are not asking to change the SOAC structure, thats a minomer

  Avri Doria: (14:40) Membership is not new and it diffuses pwoer not increases it.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:41) @James: I understand - however it would be good to have legal counsel explaining this in depth. California Law is quite an exotic subject for the vast majority of stakeholders

  mike chartier: (14:41) Steve was specific, is a "designator model " considered "new structure".

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:41) I dont see any NEW structure

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:41) QUESTION: Is it not the case that the last two items on the chart are already decided by the Final Report of the CWG - Stewardship?  What would be the process if this CCWG - ACCT decides to go back to CWG-STewardship to reopen their report? QUESTION

  James Gannon: (14:41) Jorge: For me also!

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:41) just a faster process

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:41) Coplleagues

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (14:41) So is this a yes or a no to Steve's question???

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:42) He has a point in terms of "distributed" powers

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:42) If ICANN CONTINUE TO DEFEND ITS  MEN AND some ccwg defends SMM ,we may continue to be far from each other

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (14:42) Jordan, other directors and the Attorney General also have standing to sue for a breach of duty

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (14:42) Avri is right -- membership diffuses power globally.

  Avri Doria: (14:42) (self censored)

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:42) Fadi is asking about "who controls the people that control the new structures?" but the only new structure that is governed by people rather than by the existing SOAC structures is the MEM.

  James Gannon: (14:42) <QUESTION>So would be board be okay with the empoered SO/AC membership model as it reflects the current power strucutre? </QUESTION>

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:42) Ironically power would be less concentrated than it is no

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:42) The single member has no "people" in control of it, only the SOACs

  mike chartier: (14:42) Steve asked a yes or no question

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:42) I think the question was "does Fadi consider the designator model as a new structure in the slide".

  Avri Doria: (14:43) this makes it a tru multistakeholder organization instead of an almost multistakeholder organization

  Becky Burr: (14:43) a self-censored Avri, oh no!

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:43) Does the CCWG report "freeze" annual budget or just say that if the member does not agree with the Board, ICANN proceeds on last year + 10%?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:43) Do we

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:43) Rosemary, thank you

  Greg Shatan: (14:43) QUESTION Why did you say that the SMM would result in a "concentration of power"? Question

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:44) Are we "concentrating" power if we propose a Single member or designator composed entirely of the existing ACs and SOs?

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:44) @robin apparently

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:44) I do not see the value of the question raised by

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (14:44) I have closed the queue Greg, do you mind ?

  Becky Burr: (14:44) but you did say no to single member in LA

  Avri Doria: (14:44) the pwoer is currently concentrated in the Board and Staff hands.  We are trying to relase some of that concentration

  Alan Greenberg: (14:44) @Steve, I worry that we are concentrating power too much if most of the AC/SOs opt out...

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:44) Does the NTIA have power?

  Avri Doria: (14:45) trying to get the Board to share its power with the community

  Becky Burr: (14:45) Kavouss, the point of the question is to understand the board concerns more clearly and to understand where there is room to come together

  Greg Shatan: (14:45) Given the number of times Fadi used the words concentration of power, in the current owner I do mind....

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (14:45) Mathieu -- Can you please ask Greg's question.  I don't see any real mechanism by which the SMM concetrates power -- at least not any more than the Board's current structure.  Fadi keeps saying capture but doesn't explain that

  Avri Doria: (14:45) The Community membership model does empower the ACSOs

  James Gannon: (14:45) So what is the whole multistakehoder model? Is it ACSOs or is it everyone online?

  Greg Shatan: (14:45) So if we can ensure that the Single Member reflects the will of the SO/AC community as a whole, then we're good.

  Greg Shatan: (14:46) That's helpful to know.

  Avri Doria: (14:46) this creates check and blanaces.  it does not destroy them

  Philip Corwin: (14:46) Perhaps ICANN could ask Jones Day to look at a designator model and identify any approaches and aspects that would cause concern now, so that this CCWG does not spend weeks or months constructing a new proposal only to have it rejected.

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:46) well the power is concentrated in the hands of Board!

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:46) agree with Avri - checks and balances result from membership structure

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:46) good suggestion, Phil.

  James Gannon: (14:46) Yes

  Avri Doria: (14:46) the word single means it is only a pwoer when the community is in consensus.  it does not mean the concentration of pwoer

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (14:46) Yes

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (14:46) This conversation is only going to escalate badly.  Let's move on. We just need clarity that a designator model is okay so let's get that clarity.

  Brett Schaefer: (14:47) Anne -- The Board proposal was that if the community vetoes the budget twice, the budget automatically is approved at the current level plus an increase of 10 percent. The CCWG proposal was that after two vetoes, the budget automatically stays at the current level. The notion that if the community vetoes the budget twice the budget should be automatically increased by up to 10 percent would, I think, significantly diminish the very purpose behind granting the community a budget veto. A 10 percent budget hike is a large budget increase year-on-year. When I asked in LA for Board clarification what rational they had for requesting a 10 percent increase -- e.g. past budget growth, projected needs, etc. – Bruce said that they had not really given it serious consideration and settled on 10 percent because it was a round number and it could just as easily be 5 percent or previous budget level plus inflation. A wild guess is not a serious proposal.

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (14:47) +1 Avri again ..

  Brett Schaefer: (14:47) I think this matter needs a lot more consideration before the community endorses it. As proposed, the proposal would greatly diminish the incentive for the Board to compromise or listen to community objections on the budget. Think about what we are talking about. The Board proposes a budget that the community opposes so strongly that it vetoes the budget. Then, after that serious action, the Board fails to heed the community’s concern(s) to the point that the community vetoes it again. After this level of disagreement, a budget is approved that is 10 percent higher than the previous year?

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:47) I also would like to know what other advice Jones Day has given to the Board. Have we been provided with that? Can we receive information on this ?

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:47) @Jonathan - how is designator model okay when Sidley says CCWG rejected it as insufficient to enforce budget and strategic/operating plan veto?

  Wolfgang 2: (14:47) @ Avri: In a possible WS 3 (ICANN 2020) one option could be to delegate more decison making power to the SOs. The ASO has already its own decison making power.  For very specific  G-issues th GNSO  Council should have its own decison mkaing power. This is another way to decentralize decision making. But this is not the question of today. This is something for tomorrow. .shgWhy

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (14:48) Well said Jordan!

  Christopher Wilkinson: (14:48) But Jordan: it is the community that has appointed the Board ...  No?

  Phil Buckingham: (14:48) Brett +1 absolutely

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:49) I support Farzi's request for transparency on the board briefings on CCWG.  Thank you.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:49) AGree with Jordan.

  mike chartier: (14:49) +1 Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:49) Thanks Fadi

  Greg Shatan: (14:50) Jordan the Brave re-earns his honorific

  Greg Shatan: (14:50) We can help you find the way through clarification, rather than by change of destination.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:50) There's a point I forgot to add -  it is really important for Board/Staff to remember their dual role as a stakeholder and as a decisionmaker; it was unfortunate in LA that there was a bit of a use of the "decision" role to influence the weight placed on its "stakeholder" role.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:51) I think we still have to find the right balance between powers and responsibilities, between the common interest and the parts, the right way to ensure that all parts of the global community are able to participate in decisions. In LA we saw that there are still vast differences...

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:51) Fadi: OK, accept this as your interpretation of that, and appreciate your understanding that we need to go through the process of assessing all the comments directly.

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:51) Yes Jordan I totally agree.

  Avri Doria: (14:51) CW: the point is that once the Board meber is invested, he or she gives up his or her link to the community that (s)elected him or her, but becomes bound to the fiduciary repsonsiblity as defined by the ICANNj legal staff.

  Rudi Daniel: (14:51) apologies for late appearance

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:51) This is Board's interpretation.

  Avri Doria: (14:52) we can stop it as soon as we no longer perceive it to be the case.

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:52) But it's the truth !

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:52) <Question> Under the Board MEM model, the community cannot enforce standard bylaws violations, which includes Annex A of ICANN's bylaws that provides for a bottom-up policy development process.  How would the community enforce a violation of standard bylaws, like Annex A that proscribes GNSO policy development.  > question>  Thank you.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:52) Christopher: yes, but today their authority is moderated by the NTIA role. So we are trying to deal with what happens after. Sharing authority is useful in that context.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (14:52) Appreciate Fadi's assessments and underlining maitenance of  coherent multi-stakeholder model.  If GAC chooses not to participate in voting mechanisms, for me that raises two questions: could major governance decisions be taken without GAC having a formal role; what is the inter-relationship of GAC advisning the Board as provided for under the byaws.

  Becky Burr: (14:53) Actually, Robin, good point - this slide really doesn't get at the Bylaws enforcement through IRP or IRP with MEM procedures

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:53) very true, Mark

  Rafael Perez Galindo: (14:53) +1 Mark

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (14:53) @ Mark -- my own viw is that the GAC needs to choose -- either it takes a role beside all the other stakeholders on an equal footing in the SM or Designator group OR, if it prefers, it keeps its current preferential role as a privledged aedvisor to the Board.  It can't have both, I think ....

  Avri Doria: (14:53) if thee que was closed it was closed

  Brett Schaefer: (14:54) +1 Paul

  Greg Shatan: (14:54) Thank you Sebastien.

  Alice Munyua: (14:54) +1 Mark

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:54) I vote that the closed queue be closed-closed.

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:54) very good Sebastina

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:54) is a very high treshhold

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:54) not a concentration

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:54) Sebastian

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:54) No I do not agree with you

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:54) D'accord avec Sebastien

  Avri Doria: (14:55) it someone will not understand, no amount of explanation will make a difference

  Alan Greenberg: (14:55) But concentration can occur if too few parts of the community opt in and participate in voting in the CMSM.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:55) let's just take the slide for what it is

  Becky Burr: (14:55) @Mark - the GAC has a formal advisory role with formal requirements for process, dialogue, attempt to reconcile, etc.  Notheing would prevent the GAC from participating (through Advice, e.g.,) in formulation of community positions, even if it retained its advisory role

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:55) and +1 Sébastien

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:55) +1 Sebastian

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:56) Single membership was adopted versus multiple membership which required the establishment of an uncorporated  ASSOCIATION

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:56) a right decision-making framework is key to avoid a gaming of the system and we saw in LA that some support that some community actions could be exercised by as low thresholds as two SO/AC (out of the seven)

  Avri Doria: (14:56) they said they would not vote.  but they can decide to at any point

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:56) @Alan - which means that this question should be addressed as to quorum and threshholds for issues depending on whether or not the SO or AC participates on that issue.  If there is a fear of capture, then the SO or AC is not going to refuse to participate on the issue. 

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (14:56) if we remove the need to vote and just had consensus building, that deals with the concentration detail that Fadi is now explaining

  Greg Shatan: (14:56) It's helpful to know specific issues, so that we can solve those issues, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:56) Fadi

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:57) AGree with Jordan

  Becky Burr: (14:57) i am confused.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (14:57) Agree with Jordan also.  We can get past that issue.

  Christopher Wilkinson: (14:57) The prinary responsibility of ICANN is to regulate the conditions of competition in the global DNS markets. That is the main reason for ensuring that the SOs do not dominate the Single Member. CW

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (14:57) @Jordan a freudian lapsus

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:57) Do you mean " concentration " as  limited to certain group

  Greg Shatan: (14:57) We'll build a bigger tent.

  Malcolm Hutty: (14:57) If Fadi is happy with the Single Member provided every part is represented, then I say that's a deal: those that have said they won't participate only said they won't participate as a voter. The GAC, the SSAc, the RSSAC are non-voting on the Board, so there's no problem with them being non-voting participants here too

  Becky Burr: (14:57) That is not the primary responsibility of ICANN Christopher - that has NEVER been its Mission statement

  Chris Disspain: (14:57) I don't do tents...can we have a gazebo?

  Avri Doria: (14:58) Becky it is reasonable to become confused when being spun

  Alan Greenberg: (14:58) @Avri/Anne, if each AC/SO could opt in on a case by case basis, then my concerns would be somewhat eased. BUt that is not how our proposal is worded.

  Sébastien (ALAC): (14:58) @Alan if all participate in the dsicussion, voting is just the end of the process

  James Gannon: (14:58) +1 Malcom

  Greg Shatan: (14:58) Is that two syllables or three, Chris?

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (14:58) That was a much clearer statement  - it is the fact that SOs and ACs can opt out of Member decisions that is bothering the Board.

  Chris Disspain: (14:58) :-)....3

  Avri Doria: (14:59) Anne, it is the explanation of the day

  Keith Drazek: (14:59) Having this presentation and dialogue today was far more productive than it would have been on Saturday.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:59) +1 Malcolm.   We just need a way to determine whether we hace consensus among all the AC/SO participants.    That's why we invented voting, after all.

  Christopher Wilkinson: (14:59) @ Malcolm: Dream on ... The Board has numbers of independent members appointed by NomCom. CW

  mike chartier: (14:59) +1 Keith

  Rudi Daniel: (14:59) is Fadi asked ng, what is the mechanism within the singke member model for inclusive participation, not allowing just a subset of the community with a concentration of powers. ??

  mike chartier: (14:59) +1 Malcolm

  Farzaneh Badii: (14:59) I think after all these meetings we really did not understand the REASONS for Board to be against the single member model. I think we should request for the advice they have received from their lawyers .

  Avri Doria: (15:00) wish i had raised my hand in time.

  Greg Shatan: (15:00) We need a decision making process that brings in all SO/ACs.

  James Gannon: (15:00) That is a surmountable problem

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (15:00) Avri, make your point in the chat, please. I am sure Fadi will respond.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:00) Risk is this:  if the CCWG now reacts to the helpfully specific way Fadi describes the board's concerns... will the board and ICANN legal agree to stand by Fadi's explanation?

  Avri Doria: (15:00) i did.

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (15:00) @Paul: your previous comment with respect to the GAC refers to the "double dipping" discussion we had in LA. We should not forget that other SO/ACs may also have multiple ways of involvement in ICANN's decision making with the new accountability structure (e.g. gNSO developing policies, appointing member to the Board AND participating in the Community Mechanism)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:01) Can we get an answer in the coming days on how the community will enforce violations of standard bylaws including Annex A which proscribes how GNSO policy is made and treated by the board under the board's MEM model?  Thank you.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:01) @Avtri : I would have given you the floor, sorry !

  Malcolm Hutty: (15:01) @Farzaneh, we have seen the advice from their external lawyers, Jones Day. And it fundamentally opposes the purpose of this CCWG, and explicitly opposes some of the "intents" of CCWG, not only the mechanisms we propose

  Avri Doria: (15:02) you said the queue was closed., so i dropped my hand.

  Avri Doria: (15:02) isn't that what a person is supposed to do?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:02) I added a but...

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (15:02) Avri, french and germands leave the verbs for the very end

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:03) But it was very civil of you indeed

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (15:03) common Mathieu

  Avri Doria: (15:03) i try to be

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (15:03) I pay to hear Avri

  Philip Corwin: (15:03) What day is this Dublin F2F scheduled for?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:03) Friday 16th October Phil

  Sabine Meyer: (15:03) 16 Oct

  Rosemary Fei (Adler & Colvin): (15:03) Would additional time in Dublin occur after the time already scheduled?  Flight have been booked.

  Keith Drazek: (15:03) I think their primary stated concern is about potential capture of SO/ACs. If we're transferring power and authority to the SOs and ACs, how do we ensure they're not capturable? The CCWG has acknowledged that concern  in our own deliberations, and assigned it  to WS2 if I'm not mistaken. It now looks to be a firm WS1 requirement.

  Philip Corwin: (15:04) Thx. I have PPSAI WG at least part of that day

  Malcolm Hutty: (15:04) <QUESTION>What day will the first f2f of the CCWG be in Dublin (including any "informal", "non-decisionmaking" sessions)?</QUESTION>

  Brett Schaefer: (15:04) Pedro --  As also rebutted in LA, no other SO/AC has the authority of the GAC to force Board consideration of its  consensus advice.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:04) Malcolm : on Friday

  James Gannon: (15:04) Same here Phil Leadership Training/CCWG/PPSAI all on Friday

  Malcolm Hutty: (15:04) Thanks

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:04) if we do more sessions, will they be during the week not after it?

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:05) @Malcolm: questioning our authority is a weak reason for opposing the single member model. Also I think we need more transparency in Board's communications among each other on this issue. The reason is that we just don't know why exactly the board is against the single member model. 

  James Gannon: (15:05) The week is incredibly packed as it is

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:05) Come on, I'm sure you're available at night !

  James Gannon: (15:06) Im the local host! I have 24h time bookings!

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:06) ok James you have a waiver

  Greg Shatan: (15:06) Party at Gannon's house.

  James Gannon: (15:06) Greg I wont even see my house for the two weeks =)

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:07) who is working informally where?

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:07) I am confused by Kavouss

  Greg Shatan: (15:07) James, even better then!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:07) I would share Kavous' concerns if they turn out to be the case, but has that been discussed yet?

  Wolfgang: (15:07) @ Farzahneh: Ther is a long list of reasons we there are concerns to the model. Nothing is hided. Evyerything i open and ransparent and expained.

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (15:07) @Brett: what happens to the policies developed by the SOs? 

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:08) Instead of "coordination", perhaps cross-information would be more appropriate

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:09) so we will need to have a few volunteers for some WP1 work

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:09) Wolfgang, I am just worried that you might be getting the wrong advice. That is all.

  Alan Greenberg: (15:10) Jordan, I will be there until terminal exhaustion sets in.

  Alan Greenberg: (15:10) Which may not be far away.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:10) Alan: let's hope that this process doesn't kill anyone

  Avri Doria: (15:10) We will have to give this priority

  Becky Burr: (15:10) "listen" = "hear"

  Greg Shatan: (15:10) Fuzzy


  Grace Abuhamad: (15:10) speak farther away from mic @james.

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:10) ok sounds fine now

  Avri Doria: (15:10) middle of the night is free

  Alan Greenberg: (15:10) @Jordan, getting might close, perhap not kill, but close to burned out.

  Alan Greenberg: (15:11) might=mighty

  Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair: (15:11) We will all stay at James' house

  Greg Shatan: (15:11) There is a GNSO Council onboarding event on Friday.

  James Gannon: (15:11) hahaha

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:11) Kavouss, I have not heard  of any closed focus group. Have u ?

  Alan Greenberg: (15:11) @Greg, ALAC also

  James Gannon: (15:11) If we are doing that Thomas is paying for some damn good whiskey for us all

  Avri Doria: (15:11) i am willing 2am -4am  is a stad time for CCWG mtgs

  Sabine Meyer: (15:11) So...GNSO Council, ALAC AND CCWG at James' house

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:12) Agree with Alan - I support.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:12) Leon ,the focuss group is not another type of working party as it is closed

  Greg Shatan: (15:12) Who do you define as SO/AC leaders? SO/AC/SG/C/RALO leaders?

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (15:12) @alan then the CCWG has to meet permanently????

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:13) My fear with such a group is that it will simply spin out of control into a whole new set of people who wnat to get into the detail and "solve" things

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:13) if that can be avoided... it should be useful...

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:13) What  is the meaning of focuss , is it focussed on a particular topic  or focuss means limited participation

  Wolfgang: (15:13) @Farzaneh: As an academmic I do my own SWOT before I finalize my position

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:13) Alan is agree because he is chairing ALAC

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (15:14) just like the UN

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (15:14) opne and permanent

  Alan Greenberg: (15:14) It is not a matter of authority but as someone who must collate and filter the views within my community.

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (15:15) <Question> Dear Chairs: what are we haggling about???? I dont get it

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (15:15) I expect GAC chair will need to report to the Friday meeting on progress and Dublin plan for GAC to address (in open session) the concerns  by some GAC member governments about ST18 - with possible proposal for  new text and descriptor of rationale. This is not a suitable topic for a focus group discussion.

  Avri Doria: (15:15) perhaps they can slip the agreement under our hotel room doors after they figure out the answer. 

  Keith Drazek: (15:15) We need to discuss the next steps of our public comment analysis.

  Alice Munyua: (15:16) Agree with Kavouss, the chair of the GAC for example does not represent GAC position unless it is a consensus position

  mike chartier: (15:16) +1Avri

  Alan Greenberg: (15:16) The Chairs of chartering organizations may or may not be able to REPRESENT the group, but will have a responsibility to oversee the ratification process.  But if the CCWG does not want it, fine.

  Becky Burr: (15:16) I do not think ICANN intended us to look outside of the CCWG to create a new group of SO/AC leadership.  I know that is what he said, but i also know that he believes the CCWG must lead this process

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:17) so I am going to Voluntold people on WP1 to deal with prepping summaries and questions arising from the Public Comments on the four topics set out (with the powers divided into five)

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:17) (and ask for volunteers too)

  Avri Doria: (15:17) he?

  James Gannon: (15:17) Congrats Greg.


  Ken Salaets/ITI: (15:17) @Avri, only in the dead of night, mind you.

  Christopher Wilkinson: (15:17) No closed meetings. We have spent a lot of time, and we shall have spent resources to go to Dublin. We need to have access to all phases of the discussion, particularly if it is part of a decision making process. CW

  Becky Burr: (15:18) What he was talking about is closer to design groups to take on discreet issues and really nail down the details.  This can be done within the working party structure, where we already have sub-groups

  Alan Greenberg: (15:18) @Greg, I presumed chairs of the chartering orgs.

  Becky Burr: (15:18) and of course, nothing should be closed

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:18) Why the othersd are not allowed to take part in that working party from 30 Sept till 12 October

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:18)  Let us all be involved

  Keith Drazek: (15:18) I think Ira was suggesting design teams to include CCWG reps, ICANN staff/board, legal experts, etc. With the goal of delegating some work to targeting specific problem areas as called out in the public comments.

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (15:19) Txh for that clarification Mathieu!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:19) That was IRA views that does not reflect the views of evrybody

  Becky Burr: (15:19) correct, Keith - working groups of CCWG with appropriate expertise

  Keith Drazek: (15:19) That's why I said it was Ira's view,  as I interpreted it.

  Becky Burr: (15:20) but not closed, and not separate from the CCWG

  Keith Drazek: (15:20) correct

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:20) Mathieu m, There is no problem to make summary of the comments but no alternative or optional 7 options

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:20) A limited number of people may not come to the best option

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:21) The group must be opened to those who are willing to participate and ready to contribute

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:21) No body MUST be excluded

  Avri Doria: (15:21) people are talking as if we could change our chair's plans.  i marvel at your beleif.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:21) @Kavouss; this prep work should not limit the options, you are right

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:21) We also would encourage direct engagement of Board members in WPs

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:21) Mathieu

  Alan Greenberg: (15:22) I think "co-ordinating" is probably not the right word. Level-setting?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:22) Pls declare that the Focuss Group is open to those intrested BUT NOT CLOSED

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:22) cross-information

  Alan Greenberg: (15:22) Flag-waving?

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:22) and legal sub-team, plenty of WPs

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:22) Absolutelu Kavouss. Work parties are open to members participants etc. Can join anytime

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:23) i AM TAKING OF FOCUSS GROUP

  Avri Doria: (15:23) the WPs are not 'new

  Alan Greenberg: (15:23) I di not think that "focus group" is an apt description.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:24) Where is a focus group menntioned ?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:24) ICANN is known for its openess , inclusiveness and democratic process.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:24) Pls do not break that

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (15:24) LOL.  Good one Kavouss

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (15:24) @Kavouss nothing would change in the way we have been workng all these months

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:25) Then please abandonne  the notion of focuss group

  James Gannon: (15:25) Kavouss you have misunderstood, this will not be closed groups.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:25) Let us work like previous time

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:26) Yes, no focus group. Only a coordination, open and transparent in addition to our existing WPs

  Keith Drazek: (15:26) I feel like we're rearranging deck chairs....

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:26) Focuss group may create baising the views of WPs as they already propose a metzhod

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:26) our dear old WP1s

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (15:26) indeed Jordan

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:26) I'll get a mail out to you WP1 people about that in the next hour

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:26) I feel like we have been arguing over something that does not exist! a closed focussed group ? ! where when ...

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:26) after breakfast

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:27) so by 12 October

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:27) I agree we must remain open, but it sounds like that issue has been clarified and they are open.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:27) It looks like that somebody write a text and ask other to comment on that text. The disadvange of the predrafted text is disabliong free thinking of the otherst

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (15:28) "Focus Group" does not just look at or review ssues: the term infers a small group for generating ideas to resolve problems - so not ideal term does nto fit with inclusivity model.

  Leon Sanchez (Co-chair ALAC): (15:28) Indeed @Robin. We will always remain open

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:28) it's likely we will have one WP1 meeting this week, and two WP1 meetings next week - to meet the 12 October deadline

  Carlos Raul Gutierrez: (15:28) thak you Cahirs for the 1st wonderful hour. I f you need volunteers on the public comments, cout on me. But now I have to leave. Best regards

  James Gannon: (15:28) where have we said the SOAC chairs would be doing the work????

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:28) I will try and ensure they are at diverse times so as to keep things as inclusive as possible

  James Gannon: (15:29) People are misreading the text

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:29) Pls kindly reflect more about allowing openmided approach and not chanelled apprioach that somebody writimng something and push the others to think within that chanelized way

  Malcolm Hutty: (15:29) No I didn't Alan

  James Gannon: (15:29) "no decision making" its on slide 6

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:29) Alan

  Mary Uduma: (15:30)  I wish to volunteer for WP on Budget,. Not  a chair of any SO/AC but interested in contributinh to the work of CCWG in this area.

  James Gannon: (15:30) *7

  Avri Doria: (15:30) no framing of the issue? no defining scope?

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:30) @Mary : that will be in WP1, with Jordan

  Mary Uduma: (15:30) contributing*

  Malcolm Hutty: (15:30) The slide says "substantive work" in "new small groups". If that means drafting compromise proposals, I think it should be done only in groups open to all. Not limited to "SOAC repls, Board Lawyers to limit risk of friction"

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:30) If you really meant that focuss group is not seen to give a direction then what is the purpose of that

  Avri Doria: (15:30) what about 4.2


  Avri Doria: (15:30) we have alwasy encouraged them.

  James Bladel: (15:31) A better mission for a small group would be a detailed analysis on which recommendations are broadly supported by the Community.  Currently, only the Board is making that assessment.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:31) @Avri : 4.2 is to avoid the kind of confusions we've faced at some times with the Board. Not understanding each other moves

  Avri Doria: (15:31) i.e the negotiation group

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:31) James -- I think that that is what we have tabled as work for the WPs to do

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:32) are these slides on the wiki?

  Christopher Wilkinson: (15:32) My problem is solved. Thankyou. CW

  Alan Greenberg: (15:32) WPs are where work gets done, and they are open.

  mike chartier: (15:32) I think developing answers to questions that were asked in comments to the second proposal, or adding potential details is probably alright, but developing new proposals whole cloth (like MEM), probably is not (for the small groups), but may come out of the CCWG as a whole..

  Becky Burr: (15:32) WP 2 - we will have 2 meetings next week and hopefully 1 later this week.

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (15:33) @Becky -- Oh joy!

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:33) I feel like I am listening to a broken record!

  Avri Doria: (15:33) 4.2 is open?

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:33) Thanks Becky

  Alan Greenberg: (15:34) I don't think I am on the WP1 list, can I please be added?

  Alan Greenberg: (15:34) Oops, I meant WP2

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (15:34) +1 Olga

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:35) Yes, we will add new folks to the lists, but please email with requests

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:35) LEON

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (15:36) That's the motto for the name of the co-chairs:  "Forward" ...

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:36) @Greg - Congratulations on your re-election for next year as IPC President!

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:36) I have to leave the Adobe room shortly sorry

  Avri Doria: (15:36) that is called negotiation

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (15:36) A lot of communication of all the WP1-4 topics to the full ICANN community beyond the CCWG needs to be done in Dublin. Many stakeholders will have much to catch up on - this needs a clear communication strategy.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:36) Leon, may I reword what you said ?

  James Bladel: (15:36) So...unanimity?

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (15:37) Compromise Group?

  Keith Drazek: (15:37) We really need to move on....

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:37) have we discussed the scope of the work of 4.2?  We probably should.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:37) I would encourage GAC reps who want to involve in where we go for ST etc to be involved in teh discussion directly with the STWP

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:38) One of the WP1 meetings, hopefully this week, will talk through the budget power, and we will try and schedule so Cherine can be on it

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:38) On the substance: we need to make sure that comments are considered with an open, neutral and independent mind - without falling into confirmation bias. Especially when rapporteurs etc have expressed strong positions on issues where there is still divergence

  Avri Doria: (15:39) all includes 4.2, therefore.

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:40) It would be really handy if GAC could come up w consensus language on the "ST18" issue ;-)

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (15:40) +1 to Jorge´s comment

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:40) I wissh to be part of that open group under whatever label is formed

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:40) BUT OPEN

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (15:40) @Jordan - not there yet!

  Pedro Ivo Silva [GAC Brasil]: (15:41) +1000 to Jorge's comments

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:41) Jorge, Olga, I think the rapporteurs have done their best to deal with all material on a neutral basis. I suggest any specific concerns be raised publicly, and otherwise people accept that that is the approach taken in good faith

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:42) Otherwise, you simply have the (surely unintentional) effect of undermining the rapporteurs generally, AND of not resolving any specific concerns

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:42) Engagement with ICANN is no problem

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (15:42) Mark -Do you have a guesstimate as to when the GAC might come through with consensus language regarding ST18?

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (15:42) +1 Jordan

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:43) Jorge's point is good, but it should not be presumed that rapporteurs have confirmation bias. They may only be autocrats ;-)

  Avri Doria: (15:43) what does green mean?

  James Gannon: (15:43) So green to engage

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:43) I'm on the record in LA with a specific idea on this - but I think it's only human to fall into some degree of confirmation bias in whatever work. Rotation and delegation of subjects where one has a direct interest are generally applicable rules

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (15:43) @Jordan, ok the problem i see is that one a rapporteur present a text then is almost impossible to change it as it becomes a must

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:43) Green is agree - red disagree

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:43) But I ask Thomas how between now and Dublin he want to be engaged with chartering organization as example how the chairs can be engaged with GAC which only meets in full session in Dublin

  Philip Corwin: (15:44) to what?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:44)  Mission impossible

  Rudi Daniel: (15:44) red

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (15:44) Very Green!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:44)  It is the wishful thinking and NON PRACTICAL

  Avri Doria: (15:44) the problem is, we are already talking about the political, so we might as well get some real advice.

  Christopher Wilkinson: (15:44) Christopher Wilkinson: I shall abstain. I note that CCWG has already received political advice, solicited or otherwise. Also the main polChristopher Wilkinson: I shall abstain. I note that CCWG has already received political advice, solicited or otherwise. Also the main political concerns are not US based. CWitical concerns are not US based. CW

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:45) NO POLITICAL ISSUE

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:45) nO POLITICAL ADVISER

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:45)  no pls do not make a middle groups

  James Gannon: (15:45) Yes please even a minimal amount will be of assistance

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:45) Thomas

  Keith Drazek: (15:45) I am not fundamentally opposed, but I think we need to focus on the work at hand...analyzing the public comments and working on an adjusted proposal.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:45) The ruling is objected

  James Bladel: (15:45) +1 Keith. 

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:45) Good suggestion Thomas!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:45) I support the written input, but not the distraction in Dublin.

  Christopher Wilkinson: (15:45) Apologies for garbled editing; arising from Adobe latency.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:46) Disagree with the ruling

  David McAuley (RySG): (15:46) +1 @Keith

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:47) I don't understand what Kavouss is talking about - it sounds like he is actually agreeing with the group but thinking he is disagreeing?

  James Gannon: (15:47) To ignore the political issue is a strategic failure of the CCWG

  Avri Doria: (15:47) ven though i voted yes, Kavouss is right, there was a majority for remianing in the dark

  Chris Disspain: (15:47) he is disagreeing with getting written input

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (15:47) MIddle ground arrived at due to balance of straw poll for and against. Get written advice and don't take up the time of the CCWG. 

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:47) +1 James

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:47) Written advice is fine - why don't we get that, and see if it incites the need for further discussion?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:48) written advice means we get the input, but not the circus in Dublin.

  James Bladel: (15:48) Agree James, but we don't have a complete project for them to advise on.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:48) who is the political adviser

  Farzaneh Badii: (15:48) if we don't talk to political experts soon we will go back to square one. just like what happened to us with Board ...

  Keith Drazek: (15:48) Our legal team offered to bring its political expertise to the group. We discussed it on the list. There may be some value in doing so, but it can't be our priority at the moment. We have too much *real* work to do.

  James Bladel: (15:48) And if they are advising on an incomplete work product, then they are influencing it.

  James Gannon: (15:48) Thats why my preference would have been to bring them to Dublin and have them engage with the work

  Chris Disspain: (15:48) and with respect to all....for written advice you need to ask questions and who will draft those

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:48) They can give their views as a view but not advice

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (15:48) +1 Thomas! And Kavouss, the tick was about 50/50!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:48)  We do not need political advice

  Philip Corwin: (15:49) So far as US politics go, advice must be very limited at this time because we have no idea what the accountability proposal will be and whether it is broadly supported by US private interests, public interest groups, and others with an interest and expertise. So no objection but be realistic in expectations.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (15:49) GAC reps like me linked into UN WSIS+10 progress can provide input.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:49) Chris, true, we need to focus our request for input.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:49) Itv means that the cake was already cooked and rasing it here was purely a formality

  James Gannon: (15:49) +1 Mark, we can reach out to those wiling to assit us where possible


  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:50)  hOW THEY HAVE BEEN SELECTED

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:50) wHAST IS THEIR MANDATE


  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (15:51) Kaqvouss, my partners Cam Kerry and Rick Boucher -- as part of your independent counsel team -- stand ready to advise should the CCWG decide there would be value in hearing from them. 

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (15:52) And apologies for my mispelling of your name, Kavouss.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:52) hOLLY


  mike chartier: (15:53) +1 Steve

  Kavouss Arasteh: (15:53) They are part of leagal team

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (15:54) Agree with Steve on responding to Fadi's explanation of concerns about dis-enfranchisement risk.

  Avri Doria: (15:54) i thought he meant the structure of the report

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (15:54) Ok with Steve in the need of making sure that we know what the concerns of the Board are

  Christopher Wilkinson: (15:54) Steve: it is not only the  AC/SO, it is also the general  global Community,

  Theresa Swinehart: (15:54) my hand up for Fadi

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:55) the point is we need professional writing and a different structure for the next version of the "proposal"

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (15:55) @Avri -- Fadi said structure of ICANN, not the structure of our report.   (or were you just kidding?)

  Sabine Meyer: (15:55) Thomas, that is exactly how I understood Kieren's proposal too.

  Avri Doria: (15:55) i was talking about the remark of not changing the preort. 

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:55) My view is clear - we need a crisp short summary, we need bylaw drafts that implement it for transparency; we need a background detailed report that sets out all the methods and detailed thinking for rationale etc

  Avri Doria: (15:55) there is nothing to kid about in this event.

  Tijani BEN JEMAA: (15:55) I support Steve views

  Stephen Deerhake (.as): (15:56) How about the body of the next version be in English, and throw the technical details into one or more appendices?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:56) +1 Stephen, similar to my suggestion

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:57) have to leave the room folks, will stay on the phone

  Becky Burr: (15:58) The board is a stakeholder and perfectly welcome to participate in the working groups.

  Avri Doria: (15:58) oh 4.2 was a Board suggestion?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:58) Is Fadi now saying he does propose the SO/AC chairs sit on this group?

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:58) Avri: wasn'

  Jordan Carter (.nz): (15:58) t it an Ira suggestion?

  mike chartier: (15:58) again, Steve just asked a simple question

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:58) we decided we were doing an open bottom-up group as we always have.

  Mathieu Weill, ccNSO, co-chair: (15:58) @Avri : that was Ira's suggestion in LA

  Chris Disspain: (15:59) yes Robin....the suggestion was a coordination group as described by Fadi with the ccwg chairs, 3 Board members abd the SO AC effect that was Ira's suggestion

  Avri Doria: (15:59) Ira siuggested a negotiation group.  is that what we are doing?

  Alan Greenberg: (15:59) Answers to Steve'question should go to thwe CCWG, not the new grp.  It should not be a communications channel to the CCWG.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (15:59) How multi-lingual will the Dublin update and summary papers (in the comms strategy) for this key meeting?

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (15:59) This group said we were doing open, bottom-up groups as we always have.

  Chris Disspain: (16:00) @ Avire NO..not a negotiation group a coordination group

  Sébastien (ALAC): (16:00) But we are ICANN

  Chris Disspain: (16:00) Avire is, in fact, Avri

  James Gannon: (16:00) Chris: SOAC Chairs wouldnt be workable, but SOAC appointees maybe

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (16:00) +1 Mark

  Chris Disspain: (16:00) possibly so James

  Becky Burr: (16:00) I think more communication and interaction is very desireable.  I think a "super structure" to coordinate the CCWG is a bad idea.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:00) This top-down proposal has been rejected already.

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (16:01) +1 Robin ... many times

  Christopher Wilkinson: (16:01) Good night. I arrive in Dublin on 15/10 and leave on 24/10.  Looking forward to meeting you all again, face-to-face. CW

  Becky Burr: (16:01) Kavouss, no one is suggesting rejecting the Board input at all.  In fact, we must consider the Board input carefully and adjust our proposal to address the need s and views of stakeholders

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:01) SO's and AC's have already appointed people to represent them on this accountability work.  It sounds like the board-staff want a different group of people.

  James Gannon: (16:02) Kavouss we have not announced anything.

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (16:02) +1 Robin

  Farzaneh Badii: (16:02) I am confused

  Chris Disspain: (16:02) For could be 3 chairs, 3 Board memberrs abnd representatives of the SOs and ACs

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (16:02) broken telephone situation...

  Avri Doria: (16:02) What about Willie Curry's suggestion that we should not accept Ira's suggestion.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:02) Chris, it has been decided that this group will be open and bottom-up as we always have been.  No changes.

  Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage): (16:03) +1 Avri

  Avri Doria: (16:03) but i accept that we are going do what it is that the powers that be want to do in the end.

  Chris Disspain: (16:03) I am merely answering questions Robin

  Sabine Meyer: (16:03) For the people on CWG design teams: how were those set up?

  mike chartier: (16:03) I think what Ira proposed, and what some people are afraid of, is the classic ITU process, where the chair convenes a group of "relevant" administrations, sometimes litteraly in a locked room, and they emerge with a new proposal, essentially for an up or down vote by the conference. So just need clarification on the makeup and mandate of the group, and how the output will be used.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:03) SO and AC chairs are welcome to participate like anyone else.  there is no need to create a new group (that has not been following this issue as closely).

  cherine chalaby: (16:03) We need to find a sensible way of engaging in a simalar way to the work out sessions in LA, in order to reach concensus on the few items such as the budget issue

  James Gannon: (16:03) Sabine, small issue focussed teams

  Alan Greenberg: (16:03) @Sabine, largely volunteers

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (16:03) @Kavouss - The responsibility of the CCWG is to follow the Multistakeholder process.

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (16:04) I can't emphisise enough effective communications critical - also with an eye to New York WSIS+10.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): (16:04) Thank  you all - especially to the Chairs!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (16:04) bye all

  David McAuley (RySG): (16:04) Thank you all

  Rudi Daniel: (16:04) Kavouss, we have to take the board's proposals very seriously, but we also have to sell in a convincing manner what the CCWG proposal end we may well get a tropical blend...thank you.

  Christopher Wilkinson: (16:04) @Avri  Political advices will not necessarily lead to consensus.CW

  Farzaneh Badii: (16:04) Thank you. bye

  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (16:04)

  Avri Doria: (16:04) sigh, bye

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (16:04) We are not switching horses in mid-stream, despite the board's kind suggestion.

  Alice Munyua: (16:04) Thank you and bye

  Fiona Asonga (ASO): (16:04) Bye

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): (16:04) bye

  Holly J. Gregory (Sidley): (16:04) Thank you

  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): (16:04) Thanks

  Mary Uduma: (16:04) Bye All

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (16:04) Thx and may all be ready for compromising.

  Niels ten Oever: (16:04) Bye

  Sabine Meyer: (16:04) good bye everyone!

  Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina: (16:04) bye thanks

  • No labels